Forms of Resistance

What will it take to end the horror of war? What forms of opposition are appropriate in the struggle against imperialist wars? Is there such a thing as just war? These are constant questions in the antiwar movement. People's answers to these questions come from two sources: their understanding of war, including why it happens; and their own moral responses to violence in society. These sources for any of us are interrelated and our answers to one are formed by our answers to the other.

Many of us oppose imperialist war with peace across the board, strategically and tactically, in line with the basic principle of being against war. This is in line with many people's personal moral codes and understanding of society. Since we try to get along with people in our day to day lives, we should strive for the same throughout society and the world. This follows from our reasons for being against war in the first place. Some taking this approach are thoroughgoing pacifists, opposing all war, and on a basic level struggling to practice a philosophy of nonviolence in opposition to war and in the course of struggles for justice on many fronts. Many of us who practice this philosophy understand that violent domination and aggression may give rise to violent resistance, and will struggle courageously on the side of the people of the world against "their own" imperialists when this is the case, seeing the basic source of the violence in the oppressors. This philosophy does always look for nonviolent ways for all people to struggle against oppression.

Others of us see a positive justice in violent resistance to U.S. and other imperialist domination and attacks and welcome the defeat of the imperialists in such cases. Those of us with this view may see such armed resistance as justified self-defense against imperialist/proxy war. Some see violent revolution as a justified means to overthrow capitalism/imperialism. Some see such revolution as justified to establish or defend democratic rights. In some situations all of the above may apply. A related question is how is the struggle against the war machine to be waged within its "home base".

One aspect of the contradiction between these two general views is our assessment of and attitudes towards those running the war machine. Another aspect is our answer to the question of to what extent change is possible and by what means. These two aspects interpenetrate around the basic question of whether the system and political structure which runs the imperialist war machine will continue to be on top and running things no matter what. Is it possible to bring about some form of fundamental social change in our struggle? What is the relationship between taking a moral stand in radical opposition to the war machine and actually stopping it?

Another way of putting this is that we should struggle "by any means necessary"-but what means are necessary?

One source I found both concise and informative is 'Philosophy of Nonviolence' by David McReynolds. In part six of this essay he lays out some concentrated summation of key aspects of this philosophy of struggle:... 'In Part Five I laid out how nonviolence works. By creating social dislocation, it creates "new facts" that permit your opponent to change...'It is our job not to make it harder than necessary for our opponent to change...'

He cites positive examples of this form of struggle: the Montgomery bus boycott; the campaigns led by Mahatma Gandhi in India for people to make their own salt and spin their own cotton; and the struggles of the United Farm Workers in the U.S., including the Grape Boycott. He points out that people in all conditions of life can engage in nonviolent struggle. He calls attention to the importance of a constructive program in this- using India and also Vietnam as examples. (In India these campaigns supplied people's needs as well as undermining British control. In Vietnam policies to meet peoples needs were key parts of the struggle against the U.S.)

My own view is that it will take revolutionary war-ultimately on a world scale-to put an end to imperialist aggression, domination and war.

My critique of this starts from analysis of the nature of change which can be struggled for from this standpoint. Basically, if we are permitting our opponent (in this case what I would call the war machine) to change, and not making it more difficult than necessary for this to happen, we are granting our opponent legitimacy, and not challenging government/military/police authority beyond a point. It is precisely during a crisis such as a war that the imperialists most desperately need legitimacy and authority. Thus the extremely heavy barrages of disinformation and open and crude media control when the U.S. has attacked Yugoslavia and Iraq. Thus the massive media campaign a couple of years ago against revelations of U.S. use of nerve gas during the Vietnam War. It is quite possible that exposure and protest at a Madeline Albright "town hall" meeting a few years ago may have may have made them back off a planned heavy attack on Iraq for some months-by interfering with the governments quest for legitimacy in this. This town hall meeting was powerful nonviolent protest-precisely in that it undermined the legitimacy of the war machine.

To see where leaving the legitimacy of oppressive authorities intact leads-check out the limitations on change that can be brought about where this is the case. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh-where nonviolent struggle first took route in a thoroughgoing way-remain structurally dependent on the imperialist countries over 50 years after independence. This dependence and corresponding imperialist domination (especially U.S. at present, and formerly Soviet) create misery for the vast majority of the people. Multiple wars have been fought among these countries, two of which now have nuclear weapons capabilities.

Many decades after the Montgomery Boycott national oppression of Black people remains a defining feature of American society.

Decades after the grape boycott the situation of workers overall has gotten worse in the U.S.

U.S. imperialism still suffers from the effects of the militant, including revolutionary anti war struggles against the Vietnam War. However, they have managed to pull off horrendous war and aggression against the people of the world, with the limitation of being afraid to the point of paranoia of getting into situations where they risk substantial casualties to U.S. troops.

Acceptance of the legitimacy of the system and its rulers has not had the effect of moving any of these struggles forward. Rather, it has been the challenge to this legitimacy in each of these struggles which has really empowered the people. This question is crucial to any movement for change, especially the struggle to stop imperialist war.

McReynolds also writes: 'The person using nonviolence will never defame the character of the opponent, but will always seek to find what the Quakers call "that of God" in those with whom we struggle... We shall do our best to love those with whom we are in conflict... And it must be a movement which never demonizes our opposition.'

This is consistent with basic personal morality which is behind why many of us oppose the war machine in the first place. However, it brings us right to the heart of the question of whether to legitimize the authority of those running this war machine. The problem with this is that the authorities in this case are not just people exercising a wrong moral judgement-they are exercising political power on behalf of, and at the top of, an unjust social system which relies on military force to keep functioning. This is what imperialism is all about. For example, Robert McNamara came out in opposition to the Vietnam War years after the fact in his autobiography. For one thing, this had not stopped him from actually running the war while in office. Additionally, his reasons for saying he decided the war was not a good idea had a lot more to do with U.S. imperialist strategy than any moral considerations or the effect of protest-he cited the coup in Indonesia as changing the strategic situation in Southeast Asia, making the war unnecessary. He forgot to go into the U.S. role in that coup and the associated bloodbath as the people and revolutionaries of Indonesia were massively repressed. McNamara clearly consciously subordinated whatever personal "moral" views he may or may not have had, in office and afterward, to the necessities of empire, however he dressed this up. This is what those running the war machine do as a matter of course. We need to be aware of this no matter what our own feelings are towards how to politically confront those running the war machine.

Another problem more generally is that the imperialists often carry out horrendous crimes in the name of "peace" and this can confuse many people. This has been and is the case in Yugoslavia and former Yugoslav republics, and is also a pretense for intervention or attempts at intervention in Congo, Sierra Leone and other African countries, as well as Indonesia and East Timor, and is a key part of U.S. strategy in backing Israeli occupation of Palestine and figures into their strategy in Colombia, Peru, Turkey, Ireland and elsewhere. The problem here is that the imperialists created the conditions for these conflicts in the first place, either straight-up started them or caused such oppression that people have justly risen up in arms against this oppression.

My point in saying all this is not to propose putting the antiwar movement on some sort of war footing itself. We need to broadly unite all who can be united to oppose and stop imperialist war and aggression. We must unite people with different standpoints on nonviolence as well as many other questions and debate these questions in ways which will strengthen the movement to stop imperialist war. I think one basis for unity among ourselves should be the basic understanding that the crimes of the system are not legitimate in any way, shape or form. We should look at these massive crimes against the people (such as well over a million people killed by sanctions in Iraq, the devastation being brought against the people of Colombia by U.S. aid, the imperialist campaign to deny affordable AIDS treatment to South Africa and other third world countries, etc. when we are figuring out how to go forward to stopping all this.

We want to hear your point of view, especially other positions. Write or email us.